February 08, 2006

Hutchison gives in to pressure, asks for Valley VA hospital

See? Protests really do affect change:

After U.S. Senate candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky's nearly two years of advocacy for a VA hospital south of San Antonio, Kay Bailey Hutchison asked the Veterans Administration yesterday to consider turning a former regional hospital into a VA hospital for South Texas veterans.

In her June 27, 2005 press release Radnofsky formally called for a veterans' hospital south of San Antonio as soon as Hutchison entered the race, and she repeated that call in over 300 campaign stops, rallies, meetings and press conferences throughout Texas, as well as in media advisories and position papers including her most recent press release on February 2, 2006.

Succumbing to Radnofsky's advocacy, the activities of local veterans, South Texas legislators, and a resurgent Democratic Party, and feeling the pressure of declining support among Hispanics (56%, Nov. 2005 to 46% in Jan.2006) in the most recent Zogby Battleground States poll, Hutchison moved to limit the damage by finally moving ahead with a much-needed hospital.

"Hutchison, as Veterans Affairs Subcommittee chairwoman on the appropriations committee, has failed to fill the gap in projected VA budget shortfalls and has deserted our veterans," says Radnofsky. "Her resistance to a hospital south of San Antonio until forced by my campaign, and her repeated votes against increased veterans’ funding, demonstrate that our veterans need a real advocate in Washington, not a rubber stamp for the administration."

According to Radnofsky, "Sen. Hutchison, after following my lead on a VA hospital for South Texas veterans, now needs to follow my recommendations on guaranteed funding for the VA, protection of veterans and service personnel from unscrupulous lending practices and discrimination in bankruptcy proceedings, insurance reform, and federal research authorization for pharmacy and medical schools in South Texas and El Paso."

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 08:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 31, 2005

Public Health: Cheaper, Longer Life and Fewer Dead Kids

One of the right’s primary arguments against a single-payer national health system is it will be more expensive than private insurance. They argue against another federal program. What they have not recognized is all other countries that have public health plans are actually cheaper than the US as expressed in expenditures per GDP and per capita. In addition, public health systems in some cases provide better overall health service as measured through an increased life expectancy.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks member state’s health systems. They issue an annual study on the cost of health care and the overall effectiveness of the various systems. In their latest report on the US, they note of member countries, only the US, Mexico and Korea rely primarily on private health insurance to provide medical care. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.

The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.

So, the US spends the most on health care. Our system must provide some incredible benefits! Actually, the US benefits are below median for all OECD countries. In 1990, the median life expectancy of males and females for all OECD countries 75.5 years, while the US’ number was 75.3. In 2000, the OECD median life expectancy was 78 and the US’s was 76.8. In 2003, the OECD’s number was 78.5 and the US’ was n77.2. For the years 2000-2003, the OECD’s infant mortality rate as expressed as number of deaths per 1000 decreased from 5.1 in 2000 to 4.3 in 2003. In contrast, the US’ numbers increased from 6.9 in 2000 to 7 in 2003. So, in OECD countries, people are living longer and fewer kids are dying.

Countries with public health insurance spend less per GDP and per capita on health expenses, they live longer, and fewer infants die. That sounds damn good to me, but then again I like facts instead of faith.

OECD Link

Posted by Hale Stewart at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 23, 2005

There's Still A Health Care Crisis

Health care – or the remarkable lack of it available to the US population – is one of my pet issues. Regrettably, it has flown under the radar for a long time. This is too bad, because no other issues has such a profound effect on the well being of the middle class. If people don’t have the opportunity to take care of their basic health, their entire standard of living comes into jeopardy.

The current US system is a joke. There are over 44 million people uninsured. If they get sick, they’re essentially SOL. Even if you have insurance, the health insurance company will do everything they can to tell you they don’t cover that particular problem. And now, higher co-payments and deductibles are increasing in popularity, leaving more and more insured with higher and higher bills.

Now, without further adieu, the American Health Care Crisis in all it’s glory gory.

Premiums and Deductibles

From 2001-2005, health insurance premiums increased 10.9%, 12.9%, 13.9%, 11.2 and 9.2%, respectively. Over the same time, the use of high co deductibles has come into vogue. For conventional health plans, the average national deductible has increased 141% from 1999 ($249) to 2005 ($602).

Let’s think about that for a minute. The average person is not only paying higher premiums, he is also footing a larger percentage of the bill in the form a high deductibles. In other words, there is a clear trend to shift the actual burden of the cost from the insurance company to the insured, making health insurance nothing more that a payment with no benefit.

Paying For Services

The Kaiser Foundation and USA Today worked together on a series of health care articles.

Sixty-two percent of those struggling to pay medical bills have health insurance, underscoring how increasing premiums, deductibles and gaps in coverage are affecting families.

The survey, a wide-ranging look at the impact of medical costs on the nation's families, found that 28% of adults were unable to pay for some form of medical care in the past year. That's nearly double the 15% who reported such a problem in 1976.

Medical costs are a growing burden for middle-income families with children, as well as for the working class, people with chronic illnesses, the disabled and the uninsured. Many who cannot pay skimp on health care, go without prescription drugs or simply ignore their bills, the survey showed

Medical Insurance is looking more and more like a mafia protection racket. You pay money for a service you never use.

A message to Republicans (the party in power): There are plenty of people out there acting responsibly who are getting screwed. Why don’t you care about them?

Getting Insurance

Most Americans get their health insurance through their employers. The problem here is fewer firms are offering health insurance. The overall percentage of firms offering health insurance has dropped from 68% in 2001 to 60% in 2005. And the smaller the company, the less chance they will offer insurance. Only 47% of companies that had 3-9 workers offered health insurance. 74% of firms with 10-24 employees offered health insurance, and 87% of firms with 24-49 workers had insurance. So, the entrepreneur – the people Bush is supposed to love – are having a hard time getting health insurance to get and keep good employees.

The main reason for the lack of insurance? COST. 73% of those surveyed responded cost was a very important reason for their not having coverage.

So, let’s review. It’s harder to get insurance that is increasingly covering less. Even if you have insurance, you have a 1 in 4 chance of struggling to pay for medical bills.

Wow – this is one of the most successful plans I have ever seen.


LINK (PDF)

Posted by Hale Stewart at 08:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 04, 2005

The Health Care Crisis:

Although there are numerous great issues to use during the 2006 election, Democrats need to take the initiative and focus on "kitchen table" issues -- job growth, college tuition and health care. These are issues voters feel Democrats can solve with greater ability than the Republicans because it plays to one of our greatest strengths: empathy for other human beings.

This is a mega-post. For the last week, I have put together some information regarding the US’ current health system. The facts are terrible. The bottom line is the average American is losing a great deal of economic ground because of health insurance and related costs. I do not have any idea for what the appropriate answer is. However, the facts indicate there is a very large problem.

The first question to ask is “why should the Democrats Focus on Health Issues?” The answer is it is the most important topic to most Americans. In a recent CBS news survey, 28% of the respondents stated health care was the most important domestic issue, making it the number one main concern of Americans. Clearly, this is on the public’s mind. However, no one is addressing their concerns.

To explain why Americans are so concerned about health issues, it’s important to see the effect of health costs on the average American. To do this, I will use two hypothetical families and trace their financial condition for the last 5 years.

Family 1 is a single person who made $36,000/year in 2000.. He takes two prescriptions daily and his family has a history of heart disease, although these have not manifested in this particular person.

Family 2 have a husband, wife and 2 children. Their combined income was
$50,000/year in 2000. Everyone is in good health.

For the last 5 years, their wages have barely grown. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average earnings increase from 2000-2004 was 3.86%, 3.22%, 3.12%, 1.71% and 2.39% respectively. However wages have to be compared to inflation to determine the real rate of wage growth. For the same years, annual inflation was 3.4%, 2.8%, 1.6%, 2.3% and 2.7% respectively. When inflation is subtracted from wages, overall wage growth becomes .46%, .42%, 1.52%, -.59% and-.31% respectively for 2000-2004.

Therefore, family 1 who started in 2000 with $36,000 now makes $36,538.37 and family 2 makes $50,747.73.

According to the Kaisar Foundation, the average annual cost of medical insurance for a single person in 2004 is $3627/year and $9813 for a family. Therefore, for our single person, his average annual premium is 9.92% of his annual income. For the family, the premium is 19.33% of annual income.

Think about those figures for a moment. Before any other expense is taken into account, medical insurance is already a hefty expense for both families. However, their respective problems don’t end there. According to a USA Today article (Medical costs prove a burden even for some with insurance): “Some employers are embracing high-deductible policies — requiring workers to pay $1,000 or more a year in expenses before insurance kicks in. Such policies are also common for the self-employed, who buy their own insurance, because premiums are generally lower.”

In other words, their respective annual or monthly insurance payments don’t represent either family’s total out-of-pocket medical expenses. Suppose both families have a higher deductible policy to lower their costs. If that deductible is $1000, then health costs increase to 12% for the single person and 21% for the family.

Compounding these problems are the higher than average wage growth increase in insurance premiums. According to the Kaisar Foundation, the average annual inflation adjusted increases for insurance premiums for 2000-2004 were 5.9%, 8.5%, 9.1%, 6.1% and 5.5% respectively. Compare this increase with the after-inflation increase in wages for each of those years of .46%, .42%, 1.52%, -.59% and-.31% respectively.

Up until now, I have focused on premiums. Another important component of health care is prescription drugs. As with premiums, escalating costs are deleteriously affecting the average American. According to a Health System Change study titled Tracking Health Care Costs: Declining Growth Trend Pauses In 2004, spending on prescription drugs increased 14.2%, 13.5%, 13.1%, 8.9% and 7.2%. Finally, According to a Health System Change study titled An Update on American’s Access to Prescription Drugs: “In an effort to control rising prescription drug spending, health plans started using formularies more aggressively and increasing patients’ out-of pocket payment requirements. .”

Putting all the above facts together, we get this picture: Assuming a health plan has a prescription drug component, people are increasing spending on prescriptions at a rate that is growing faster than their annual inflation-adjusted wage increases. This is on top of the increases in their premiums and total out-of-pocket expenses caused by higher-deductibles.

So where does all of this information lead? To bankruptcy. According to a recent study by Harvard University:

“To investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9–2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.”

Having insurance is no help in preventing bankruptcy. So the heavy increases in premiums, prescription drugs and overall medical spending lead to half of the people declaring bankruptcy to do so for medical reasons.

Let’s sum all this up. After inflation, wages are near stagnant for the last 5 years. At the same time, the following areas of spending are increasing faster than wage growth: total medical spending, insurance premiums and prescription drugs. Finally, half of people declaring bankruptcy are doing so for medical reasons, even though most had insurance.

This system is not working.

Posted by Hale Stewart at 05:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 29, 2005

Frist About Face on Stem Cell Bill

The New York Times reported on Frist's plans to support the stem cell research bill.

If you can, tune into CSpan2 or stream it online at http://www.c-span.org/.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 09, 2005

They must be having a bad bill contest in the Lege - HB 1212

This one will definitely be a finalist. HB 1212, eupemistically called a "Parents Rights Bill", would make it a felony to coerce a child into having an abortion. Go to the Texas Legislature web site for contact information for your Representative and oppose this bill!

From Come and Take It:

The legislation would make it a crime for anyone to coerce a child into an abortion. If this provision passes, parents could get hauled into court for strongly urging their child to end a pregnancy. How can the state demand that parents be responsible for the choice, and then penalize them if they make a particular choice? That, in effect, coerces teens to bear unwanted children.

The bill has the following provisions (from Daily Kos):


  • When parents are "hauled into court" for urging their pregnant daughter to consider an abortion, they won't be facing just a minor charge, but a "state jail felony."

  • If a teenager's parents are aware of her pregnancy and oppose her clearly stated desire to have an abortion, it doesn't matter whether she's a 17 year-old who already has a 6 month-old baby or a gang-raped 14 year-old, because the debate stops right there: she is compelled by law to bear a child she doesn't want to have.

  • If she applies for a judicial bypass of the parental consent requirement, her hearing can be delayed for 5 days instead of the 2 days permitted by current law. Appeals will be delayed for 10 days - and that can be the difference between a first and a second trimester procedure.

  • The judge must appoint a guardian ad litem who cannot be the minor's own attorney, but may be a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a member of the clergy, or an "appropriate employee of the Department of Family and Protective Services" - and we all know how well that's worked out in Florida.

  • Judicial bypass will have venue restrictions. HB 1212 says that a bypass can only be applied for in the county where the minor lives or in the county where her abortion will be performed - which for the average small town teenager without transportation in a state the size of France, means that the option might as well not exist at all.

  • If a teenager does somehow manage to make it into court, she must meet a burden of proof much heavier than it is now. Instead of a "preponderance of the evidence," she will have to present "clear and convincing evidence" that she is subject to abuse. Legal experts testified in the House committee hearing that this could force her to present witnesses to testify on her behalf, further endangering her confidentiality and safety.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 01:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 29, 2005

Places to Go, Things to Do, Sites to See

We have several action alerts, upcoming events and interesting sites for you to start off your weekend:

Places to Go

Things to Do

Sites to See

WHAT: Houston Janitors, Community Supporters Launch 'Justice for Janitors' Campaign

WHERE: George H.W. Bush Ballroom, George R. Brown Convention Center, 1001 Avenida de las Americas, Houston

WHEN: Saturday, April 30, 2005
1 p.m. - 2 p.m. Pre-Convention Press Conference
2 p.m. - 4 p.m. Justice for Janitors Kick Off Convention
4 p.m. Janitors march from GRB Convention Center to Rally
4:45 p.m. Rally

WHO: Hundreds of Houston janitors, Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza, City Councilmember Carol Alvarado, ACORN, TMO and community supporters, SEIU Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina, and janitors from other cities

The J for J campaign has been instrumental in bringing dignity and a livable wage to thousands of Americans. For example, think about what you spend $106 on each week. Gas for your car? Groceries? Dinner and a movie out? Imagine if you only made $106 each week, and had no health care benefits. How would you get by? Take care of your family? Unfortunately, for the janitors who clean Houston's office buildings, this is a reality they've lived with for too long.

Join these hard working citizens as they kick off a campaign to secure family health care, fair wages, full-time work, and better working conditions by uniting to form a union with SEIU (Service Employees International Union), the nation's largest union of janitors and other immigrant workers.

The janitors, with the backing of community, religious and elected leaders in Houston, are holding a convention and rally this weekend to help publicize their fight to form a union and strive for better working conditions for all. The organizing campaign is joining the ongoing community-wide efforts of ACORN, TMO, business and political leaders, and others to improve access to secure, affordable health care for all working people in Houston.

At the convention, these workers, part of Houston's "invisible workforce," will tell their stories of working hard, but struggling to provide for their families and pay for health care, and why they are uniting to achieve a better life.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

April 18, 2005

Tell Congress to make drugs safer NOW!

The Consumers Union (the organization that produces Consumer Reports) has a new petition called the Prescription for Change. It calls on drug companies to make public all the results of their clinical trials so the public will know about the potentially harmful side effects of marketed drugs.

In Texas, the legislature is also considering HB 1029 that would require clinical trials be registered with the National Institutes of Health and that the results of the trials be disclosed to the public.

First we learn that Vioxx increases the risk of heart attacks. Now, we learn that Merck may have had research, as early as 2000, that uncovered these problems, but didn’t make it known to the public. It is time to end this secrecy. Lives depend on it.

Legislators have just introduced a bill--The Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act (FACT Act)--to require drug companies to make public all the results of their clinical trials so we’ll know about potentially harmful side effects. And Congress must create an independent office of drug safety in the Food and Drug Administration to ensure quick action is taken when safety concerns are raised.

Act now! Doctors and patients must have access to all safety and research information. We have momentum! Help us push it through. Make sure to ask your state to help too.

Click here to go to the action page and support safe, effective, and affordable prescription drugs.

Click here to take action in Texas on HB 1029. (See below for the key requirements of the bill and a link to the complete text of the bill.)

HB 1029 requires

An institutional review board not approve a clinical drug trial unless the person conducting the trial agrees to:
1. register the clinical drug trial with the National Institutes of Health website for clinical trials; and
2. publish the results of the clinical drug trial in electronic format on the Internet in a manner readily understood by the public.

Now for some humor:
The Austin Lounge Lizards have produced a comical animation and song about the prescription drug industry.

Posted by at 06:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 10, 2005

House Budget Fails to Restore CHIP for 175,000 Children Cut in 2003

The Texas Democratic Campaign Committee reports that despite the best efforts by Democrats, the House budget fails to restore CHIP funding.

Texas has 1.4 million uninsured children, which is a travesty. As the Chronicle reports:

Since every state dollar for CHIP is matched by $2.65 cents in federal funds, by failing to provide slots for 175,000 otherwise eligible youngsters the state is passing up over $330 million in federal dollars.

I just don't understand the mindset of those who don't think providing health care for our children should be a top priority.

New Guest Blogger Sherle Watson adds:

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services site that provides information on the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) promotes it as a national initiative to link families to low-cost or free insurance programs. But in Texas, which has the highest percentage of uninsured children in the country, CHIP enrollment is in a free fall, courtesy of our state’s Republican leadership. From a peak enrollment of 529,211 children in May 2002, over 200,000 fewer children have the basic health coverage they need today. If the Texas House has its way, things are going to get worse. Complete program statistics are available through the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

Welcome to the team Sherle!

Posted by Lyn Wall at 05:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

March 22, 2005

Another Health Care Crisis Ignored

San Antonio Express-News columnist Carlos Guerra writes that while state leaders fight over how to minimally fund education and children’s health insurance, they seem to be ignoring what is already a health care crisis in Texas—a shortage of nurses and other healthcare professionals.

According to Robin Froman, Dean of the UT Health Science Center in San Antonio, Texas should be training more health care professionals as baby boomers live longer, yet suffer multiple and chronic diseases. She predicts that by 2020, the U.S. will be 1 million nurses short. Already, there is a critical nursing shortage in Texas, but it is acute in the Texas border area—-a heavily Hispanic area of Texas long ignored by Republicans.

To assure a safe and productive learning environment, nursing faculty are permitted as many as 10 students per course. Froman states that the capacity to teach more students is available, but that funding for additional faculty is non-existent. Houston also suffers from a critical shortage of nursing staff, although the infrastructure is available to produce more if those programs are adequately funded. By increasing funding to teach more prospective nurses, the Texas legislature would help lower indigent health care costs, thus producing additional funding to provide services to more patients.

While the Legislature acts to restore CHIP funding, thus increasing the federal government’s contribution to Texas coffers, it must also act to increase the number of professional health care workers. While higher education funding is slated to be increased by as much as $800 million for this coming biennium, there is no commitment to the training of nurses.

The Republicans (as well as a few Democrats) must get off this so-called “tax reform” and “zero-sum budgeting” trip and act to increase funding substantially, and not trivially—as in Democrat Vilma Luna’s HB2345 (immigrant tax). As Texas population growth occurs at a rapid rate, the Republican legislature is acting irresponsibly by not taking the initiative to meet the needs of Texas families based on current and future estimates of population growth.

We must remind the Legislature that part of its job is to plan for the future needs of Texans. Republicans have proven that public education and public health are not as important as property tax cuts for the wealthy and for business interests. Although Democrats in Austin have provided strong and viable alternatives to Republican plans for education and children’s health care, we must also take the lead and demand funding for the education of nurses and other health care professionals. It’s called being proactive—a concept Republicans avoid at all costs—costs to those with the least.

The chances for proactive legislation coming out of a Republican legislature are low to non-existent. But it is truly an issue that Democrats must embrace and utilize in its quest to minimize the GOP-majority in 2006 statewide.

TAKE ACTION * TOMEN ACCION
HB2345--the immigrant tax--is sponsored by Democrat Vilma Luna and Republican Dianne Delisi. It has been referred to the Appropriations Committee for consideration. Now is the time to act! Contact committee members and tell them that Texas needs proactive legislation to assure the health security of Texas, and not legislation that targets indigent communities.

Appropriations Committee Chairs: (Click on names for Contact Info/Email Page)
Jim Pitts, Chair
Vilma Luna, Vice Chair

You may also write the committee, citing HB2345, at:
Cristina Self, Appropriations Committee Clerk
EXT E1.032
P.O. Box 2910
Austin TX 78768-2910

Or call: 512-463-1091 and voice your opinion.

Posted by Stace Medellin at 11:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack